UWSaint wrote:While there is some risk to signing players to a long term deal, this has been the trend under the structure of the current CBA -- a structure that I doubt will be overhauled in this round of negotiations.

Yeah I found it odd to hear people complain about the term on Garrisons deal.

When a guy is 27 does it really matter if his deal is 4 or 6 years ?

This isn't a deal taking him to 38 or 39, it's one taking him to 33, an age which most defensemen are still very effective.

The main risk in any deal like this is that the player either doesn't fit in or their play tails off because there isn't the same amount of urgency anymore. I don't think term beyond 3 years matter much for those problems especially if term is given to reduce the yearly cap hit.

If a guy does fit in and their effort doesn't tail off then you probably want the longer contract because as you pointed out, an effective defenseman will be drastically underpaid by the end of a long term contract.

Potatoe1 wrote:If a guy does fit in and their effort doesn't tail off then you probably want the longer contract because as you pointed out, an effective defenseman will be drastically underpaid by the end of a long term contract.

Exactly.

We have seen this time and time again with top four defensemen in Vancouver.

The $3.5M-ish four year contracts Jovo, Ohlund and Salo had nearly 10 years ago as our top three defensemen were big deals when they were signed, but became dirt cheap over time. Injury aside, Willie Mitchell's contract with the Canucks was very affordable by the time it was nearing expiration. Kevin Bieksa's last deal was the same way, and we're seeing the same thing with Alexander Edler who is due for a big raise from his current $3.25M deal, which looks like a steal at this point.

In a couple of years, the contracts of Bieksa, Hamhuis and Garrison, which already seem fair IMO, will likely look very good as long as we don't see significant erosion in these player's performance.

As long as we don't see a big reduction in league wide revenues which corresponds to a salary cap reduction, these 4-6 year deals on 26 or 27 year old free agents are the way to go. The inflationary nature of the salary cap gradually reduces these cap hits as an overall percentage of the total to a point where they are very affordable in their last couple of years.

herb wrote:In a couple of years, the contracts of Bieksa, Hamhuis and Garrison, which already seem fair IMO, will likely look very good as long as we don't see significant erosion in these player's performance.

Dans deal already looks like a steal. I would gladly stick an extra 2 years on it vs having to re-up him in 4 years when he's 33 and likely every bit as effective as he is now.

Well, I have no expectations that Garrison will ever score 16 goals again - that seems like an anomaly.

But the Canucks have a need for a steady, "2-way", right-side-capable defenceman that can get the puck out his own zone efficiently, contribute to the offence, and not need to be sheltered against other team's best players.

It seems to me that Garrison might fit that bill, so it looks like a good signing. If he can deliver, he instantly moves to the #4 spot at worst.

Many are suggesting that playing with Campbell was the reason Garrison did so well and there fore won't do so well here. IMO he's not exactly playing with chopped liver here. I have to think the 'Nucks style will or should be a good fit ( would have been a good fit for Schultz too)

Fred wrote:Many are suggesting that playing with Campbell was the reason Garrison did so well and there fore won't do so well here. IMO he's not exactly playing with chopped liver here. I have to think the 'Nucks style will or should be a good fit ( would have been a good fit for Schultz too)

I'm hoping he bring shades of Erhoff to the team

All comes down to chemistry. I think there's reason to believe that there is skill enough in the lineup to feed him the puck, but we'll have to wait and see how he fares. There's no saying he can't adapt and thrive with the partners with whom he may find himself.

Southern_Canuck wrote:Well, I have no expectations that Garrison will ever score 16 goals again - that seems like an anomaly.

S_C

Playing #1 PP minutes, I think those numbers are a REAL possibility. Playing with the twins and having almost a minute more of poweplay time per game, Ehrhoff was able to notch 9 goals on the man advantage with the canucks.

People keep on talk about how Jason was onlu able to put up those points because he was playing beside Brian Campbell on the power play and even stength... are people forgetting that we have two players who are arguably the best a man up in the league? As well as his potential partner only had 4 less points the BC51.

I think all in all it's possible on this team that he reaches 16 goals again, if not at least get 33+ points.